Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-12-12
COURT OF APPEALS.
Syptp II Decisions rendered By IhsI
Present Tyler Sitting

Wise. This is sn sgreed case ana follow.
ing are the t5c;s Substantially, that sre
agreed upan: Appellant was postmaster
81 Decatur, ano kept The offIca ia build
iug wliCi Gresttouse, che Of the appel
le4s, b came the owner #, and notified
sppe laDt 10 vscste. Greenhouse prds
posed, end it Rs 81 e. 10 5y &ppell5S
that the pos office slOuld be moWed
10 another DuIGiEg DeiOegiug sr0
one Peer, Tor the period o.
three yesr- sud four N 'Htbs. uuIess re-
NOV. d 5y order f 2 cfice Departmental
In Consideration OF tElS said renovsI, sp-
pfllees sSret0 20 pay appellant SIS i
month, lie AIIount he va 10 pay Tor the
rent Of said buIIdrg, SD payments 70
De made mon'G'y. App, lIsnt ran y,d
into ssid building as contract. This
sui is 10 r cover 5 s, alleged by sppel
isst 10 De Que aim upon sad cOntrGc
Applies Csmurr. u 9pDe lsat's cal
Il action on The gr0ur ina the cHnsrI
sued upOu wsS contrary 20 publ C po ,cV
and thers upon Illegal and void.
The demurrer WIS sustained
Held: The ruling wAs eTrer. II our
ppini03 ep3yllanj's pIeadI Z constituted
va!iG cause o; action. As all eed i'll ap-
pella4l's pleading the contract dves not
appear 10 b aUy resp, ct I.I=e a., but II
sue cohrsry valid ana enforceable. r.
Tersed and remsrded. Wilson, J.
NJ Palmer e. s.. vs.. W. K Scdo-
Fl Il appel IFon Hill. Appellants mad
= mortgage upon cerfoin bale If cuttou
belonging Go oae Fields who y as tse ten
aot OF one Q 1alls. Fields gsfnerud the
c0tfoB in Con I ysrsy aHd to-. K IL 70 the
gia OF Q laIs bis IzR1loId ana 'uTR.d il
over ~ sim in payment ei rent. Qnalls
directed FIELDS 10 take the COJtoa
ard pay a d. bt h. owed &ppsuee. : o
peliee pat bis pame on !he c,ttOp, it hay
lag Daep turned over to bin bai,re it WIS
rolled try n under the press. App ants
puT chased this m)rtgsge on tie oal= IT
cDsaOa, however, ana sold the same. APP
pe!lee oCJug1t this suit 80 rec yer
dams ge5 Tor cJnveTs,O1 o. same ard re-
covered Judgment Held: q ais, the
landlord, having surr~Ld-Teo = land
lorG's iisG upGn me C3.JnC, tn same was
subject - appellaa-'s mortgage RyFers9f
and rem '~ced, Wilson, J,
C-sey & Saasey V. Saih 4 Sm i
appeal from BrJWD. The same giving
the landlord & lien upJA n tenants
pr p5TEY tX.egGs only in 7ent due and
5ccI uiPg upon tue rem coLIF4Cl l. does
B0t impose = charge IN advance up.n the
property Of 5he tepsn~ for Ary rUnts that
MINT by possibility bec3ae due. Aot0r-
ueys FOR appellants rtqnegt2d ne C0ucs
30 charge sdG1 the 5aEgnt might II s1y
tie,G abasdOB, asa tie landlord cou]d g3s
MAINTAIN aa ac.iUn fer scec fl D. ffJrn
aEGe, noT to r. cover s00H@t Ro5 due, sud
net aGcFniss, bul his rcrassy woRld 0s ~
action FIR aaAaEss. This ohargs wss re-
fasAd, AID he rsfGf6l assigned as error.
ael&: The refusal 7a5 error L yerseG
and II aqxaded Wineer, J.
Missouri Pacific Railway G rapEDy vs..
4 L. Kr&ea7ik ct al; appeal from
r bertsJn. Where ga overflow was
caussa 2srsly frcR a Version Of tee
surface .aEer troD tas rlsAg eff way Of
Rae railway company into EsInrsl chan
sel, and not frs@ sE5 Negligent, uaSkill-
fEl, defective GoBatTuc ioE Of tbs road
bed Or bricge, it woHid nsa be lsgaI esRse
ter u rscoysry Of damages. Surface
water nay lawfully 81 ts.Ee6 n sS nntaral
channels, alg5ssga bt SO doing, it ia
ersesas the volu0s ST water in such
natural cRsnEels 10 tas Injury Of pro-
priessr below. A9pa lnsz R4Gsssy eoa-
trellea aaS oseEassd tA=sruaa, aRS ia
rensacsa II Responsible fsr any isjsres
arising from aet&ets II tfs rsao, Hs much
as il lhsy s.s suia ae same, APpGiI@Ei
was xsss psrw sAssx soat by "a snpszd-
ed Hssssise ,and as cast sETee IL ssjaas
iss 1As 81 III prior - Ehs time when ap-
psllast esaa pAAy wEs nfae party 70
taa sufs sgSlass Sae said company. Re
verso esd reRanssd.- Wilson, j.
William CunniDGbam vs. j B. AmmeT-
tate foIclble retainer, the relation of
landlord and tenant must exist between
tss p2T,ias, except il cases specially
sBs9eratsd in tee statue. Vendor IF
laaG cgERot tjFc5 BIS vepdee under th..
provisions OF said sIstute. Apsellss s
remedy was either by suit 10 Ell force
the spsc; fiC performance of the contract,
ar by sur to recover back the premises
end for Gsmsgss. Reversed End dismiss
ed Wilson, j.
City Of Browaw0od Us ". A. Farmer;
appeal from Brown. appellee xas tax
assessor and collector of the CITY of
Brown wood. He assessed the taxes Of
said city and made ont spd presented to
ths City CnuGcil assessment rolls, which |
were TseeIysd and approved by said !
Council. At the time such services were
rendered no compensation lad beeE pro |
Sided therefor by said corporation. Blu; |
afterwards the City Council enacted an |
ordinance which provided that |
the assessor and collector OF the |
CITY should receive for his ser |
vices the same commissions |
as are allowed the eoanfy collector end |
assessor for similar services. Under |
this ordinance appellee claimed that he |
was entitled 10 ner cerr HDon tae
amount of said rolls. The Couucii re-
fused 20 allow him but third Of said /
amount. and tDia suit is TO recover BAL |
a1ce. Held: Officers OF municipal cor
porstion re not entitled TO recover com |
pensstion for special service rendered |
oy IN, 10, when at the time OF the PERFORM
snce 81 said services. compensation
therefor has not been fxed and declared
by the proper corporats authority. Re-
yersed and dismissed. Wilson. j.